Gay and straight married couples are demographically very similar in terms of likelihood to be raising children, age, income, race, whether they own or rent a home together, education levels, and employment. And both are unlike unmarried same-sex partners (and, I suspect, unmarried straight couples), who skew younger, more educated, more wealthy, are much less likely to be raising children, and are much less likely to have invested in a home together.

That's what the Census Bureau has concluded based on a sample of same-sex couples who live together and self-report as married, although the Census Bureau does not verify whether couples (gay or straight) are legally married.

Here's the Census Bureau chart, which you can enlarge by clicking on it:

There are many fascinating results here, only a couple of which I want to highlight now.

The data about child-raising is especially significant since one common argument in the SSM debate is that marriage is centrally about providing a stable environment for children. Straight married couples are somewhat more likely to be raising children (43%) than are lesbian married couples (38%) or gay-male married couples (32%). But the difference is not huge, and separates all three categories from unmarried couples, gay and straight, who are far more likely to be childless. And while lesbian married couples are more likely to be raising children, the difference between them and gay-male couples is not nearly as large as commonly thought.

Also, a higher proportion of gay male couples are married (or consider themselves married) than are lesbian couples (52% of gay male couples v. 42% of lesbian couples). Among other things, this means proportionately more lesbian than gay male couples are raising children outside of marriage (20% v. 8%).

The debate over gay marriage is moving from the abstract to the empirical. That's especially true as more states gain more experience with actual gay marriages. Unfortunately, the Census Bureau has resisted including gay married couples in the decennial census, arguing that DOMA forbids it. I'm not sure that's right, though of course the existence of DOMA didn't stop the Census Bureau from collecting this data. (UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal says the White House has now abandoned that interpretation of DOMA and is directing the Census Bureau to find ways to include same-sex married couples in the 2010 census.)

None of this demographic information proves that gay marriage "caused" anything in particular. Among other things, it seems likely that gay couples who fit a traditional profile (have children, own a home) are more likely to get married than those who don't. And of course it doesn't resolve the debate over whether states should permit gay couples to marry.

But it does fill in some important missing information about what gay families and gay marriages look like. And it turns out that, in some significant respects at least, they look a lot like traditional ones.

You say, "The data about child-raising is especially significant since one common argument in the SSM debate is that marriage is centrally about providing a stable environment for children."

For those of us who oppose gay marriage, the debate is actually about providing children with a mother and a father to raise them, which gay marriage cannot do. The empirical data I'd like to see, is how children of same-sex couples do later in life compared to similar childern raised by a father and mother.

Finally, this is sort of off topic, but one of the best articles written lately on defending traditional marriage is here.

DC: A good point, which of course the Census Bureau can't resolve now. There are many studies on children raised in same-sex households. It's contested research, as one would expect, but it's getting better and better. Many SSM advocates, including me, have elsewhere responded to the reasonable view that the optimal environment for kids is one in which the child's biological mother and father are married. I won't repeat the arguments here, but the short of it is: moms and dads should raise their kids in marriage, but that's not a very good reason to prevent gay couples from raising theirs in marriage.

You say that "... the debate is actually about providing children with a mother and a father to raise them, which gay marriage cannot do". I don't doubt that [view] is true for you, but I have been following this debate for a long time and 9 times out of 10, those who oppose gay marriage state something to the effect of "marriage is about raising children, something gay couples cannot do". Clearly, this latter statement is factually false.

Now that it is being clearly shown that gay couples do, in fact, raise children (and often their own children, just not with each other), it remains to be seen whether the argument commonly morphs into the objection you state.

All that said, I agree with you that I'd love to see data that shows how children of same-sex couples fare later in life, as opposed to children raised by a father and mother. Anyone have references to such data?

One slight concern I'd have with your interpretation, Prof. Carpenter. The statistic is, "own children in household." Presumably, there are a substantial number of empty-nesters who, at one point, raised children in their own household. In contrast, because of the relatively new arrival of same-sex marriage, there are likely very few empty-nest same-sex families (although, I suppose, a same-sex couple could have raised children at some point before they were legally permitted to marry). I would like to see an added statistic discussing whether the couple had ever, at any point, raised children, rather than whether children still remained in the household. That might skew the demographics toward traditional married couples a little more.

Also, can we clarify whether "gay" means "gay and lesbian" in this discussion, or whether it's to mean "gay male only". I'm not sure which is PC for purposes of this, and it appears there's a statistically significant difference here in some of the demographics.

Also, can we clarify whether "gay" means "gay and lesbian" in this discussion, or whether it's to mean "gay male only". I'm not sure which is PC for purposes of this, and it appears there's a statistically significant difference here in some of the demographics

I assume that when "gay marriage" is used, it means same-sex marriage, i.e., "gay" to mean both male and female homosexuality. But when we talk about the census data, "gay" means men, and "lesbian" means, well, lesbians.

It would take more numbers to be certain, but I suspect that most same-sex couples will pay substantially more in Federal income taxes by filing tax returns with married status. From the table, same-sex couples have larger incomes, more dual-incomes, and fewer children -- all of which tilt toward large marriage "penalties."

This is one excellent reason to support Federal recognition of same sex marriage.

So we're talking about a small fraction of a percent of children being raised in same-sex households.

While that might be true, your quoted statistics don't support it; you'd need to consider the corresponding proportions for all other kinds of households. For example, I don't know what percentage of heterosexual households are raising children, but it's certainly far less than 100%. Moreover, plenty of children are being raised in single-parent households, or even no-parent households.

And of course it doesn't resolve the debate over whether states should permit gay couples to marry.

But it does fill in some important missing information about what gay families and gay marriages look like. And it turns out that, in some significant respects at least, they look a lot like traditional ones.

Yes and no to the first point. While the data certainly do not resolve the question of same-sex marriage (or civil unions), they contribute to it. The argument for same sex marriage - one for basic equality under our laws - only makes sense if same-sex marriage is sufficiently similar to heterosexual marriage for those things to be treated equally. If those marriages are fundamentally different in a way that the state, as an entity which dispenses property rights and designs inheritance and taxation systems, is justified in recognising, then there is little argument for same-sex marriage. If homosexual unions are as stable as heterosexual unions; if they involve familial structures as do heterosexual unions; and if gays would no more become straight than heterosexuals would become gay, then there is little argument against equal rights.

So yes, anything that shows that same-sex marriages function much as heterosexual marriages do is certainly an important consideration.

Like it or not, men and women are different. You can't change that, government can't change that. No matter how much you might wish it to be so, two men or two women can't come together and make babies.

I hate to break it to you, but whether you like it or not, but biology demands that same-sex households will NEVER "look a lot like traditional families".

Stomp your feet and throw a tantrum if you like... I can guarantee that there will be posters in this thread who do just that in response to my comment, but nothing can change the fact that men and women are different.

So did the census data pick up on the fact that: "A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers in the sample reported having had a homoerotic relationship (6 of the 25 young adults raised by lesbian mothers 24% compared with 0 of the 20 raised by heterosexual mothers.)"

Or how about "The young adults reared by lesbian mothers were also significantly more likely to report having thought they might experience homoerotic attraction or relationships. The difference in their openness to this possibility is striking: 64 percent of the young adults raised by lesbian mothers report having considered same-sex relationships (in the past, now or in the future), compared with only 17 percent of those raised by heterosexual mothers."

I think the argument against gay marriage goes like this:
1) hetero sex causes babies;
2) these babies need caretakers;
3) the best caretakers for babies are their biological parents living together;
4) society needs a norm to promote biological parents taking care of the kids together they create by engaging in hetero sex.

Therefore, society creates a norm that hetero couples creating kids should live together to raise those kids, and calls it marriage.

No norm is needed to promote gay couples to take care of their kids. For a gay couple to have kids 1) they create kids intentionally (in vitro, surrogate, etc) with the intent to raise them together, so no norm is needed to further promote people who have already agreed to take care of kids together to do so; 2) they receive children that are not their biological kids (adoption), and so the situation is outside of the norm in favor of parents raising their biological kids.

Basically, the benefit to society in hetero marriage is more kids being raised by their biological parents, resulting in fewer adoptions, fewer single parents, fewer step families. There is no corresponding benefit to society from homosexual marriage.

one common argument in the SSM debate is that marriage is centrally about providing a stable environment for children

But he then doesn't even come close to answering the question. Basic statistics that show how many straight couples verses Gay couples have children doesn't show that the environment in either style of relationship is stable. The statistic that will be more useful in the future is how many Gay couples are still together ten years from now compared to the straights. Yes I know of the old statistic that half straight marriages fail, but when do they fail (in the middle of the raising of the children or after the kids are gone).

Further, I find your statistics rather forced. You say more lesbians are raising children out of wed-lock then gays because more gays feel themselves married then just living together. Are you therefore also suggesting that the lesbians are living alone without a partner. Also, do they have statistics on the number of lesbians raising adopted children (like all the gays) verses the number who have born children either from a previous straight relationship (before they came out) or by sperm donner.

And is there data on what happens to the kids when the relationship breaks up. I mean, in a straight divorce (or even non-marriage breakup) the wife tends to get the kids. In a gay break-up which father gets the kids or are the kids (being adopted) just discarded. In Lesbian break-ups, were the kid is born from one, who gets custody if the partner wants the child and is the primary bread winner. In short, you use the presence of children to legitimize your argument for gay marriage. But are the kids there for love and nurturing or are they there to produce the image of a traditional relationship which DC seems to indicate is all that is important.

it seems likely that gay couples who fit a traditional profile (have children, own a home) are more likely to get married than those who don't

@Reg: I can see some of the logic of your argument, but the entire premise of looking at governmental action this way seems strangely paternalist to me. Do we really want our government to indulge in that sort of centrally planned social engineering, allowing or disallowing individual legal statuses based not on any theory of individual rights, but rather on a view of what would provide a "benefit to society"?

For those of us who oppose gay marriage, the debate is actually about providing children with a mother and a father to raise them, which gay marriage cannot do.

That's an argument in support of same sex marriage, not against it. Same sex couples don't produce children so there's no "providing children with a mother and a father" objection to them and while a gay man and straight woman can get married and have children, such a marriage is likely to be a strong candidate for divorce, again resulting in the kids being raised with only 1 parent in the household. Same sex couples can, of course, adopt children, but those kids don't have a mother or father or they wouldn't be up for adoption.

3) They have kids with a spouse of the opposite sex and then, after death or divorce, enter into a same-sex relationship.

This is more common with lesbians than with gay men; but possible with either. In these families, the children are biologically related to one parent and that parent may desperately seek marriage to ensure that their partner will have custody of her [or his] children should anything happen to her [of him].

John Moore, the above describes one way that gay men can have their own children, although I don't assert that is what is being counted in the study.

And Charles, you can stomp your feet or throw a tantrum if you like, but I didn't hear anyone here say that men and women are not different, so that straw man argument is going nowhere. Prof. Carpenter stated "... in some significant respects at least, they look a lot like traditional ones", clearly referring to the study about gay families with children, so your remaining point is pretty much a straw man also.

I was recently surprised to discover that research done by those supporting homosexual marriage provides overwhelming evidence that children raised by homosexual partners are much more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by heterosexual partners (see here).

It seems to me extremely bad policy to encourage something which greatly increases the likelihood of a child engaging in homosexual behavior. Such behavior creates difficulties with social adjustment--made harder when one of an individual's most basic drives is at odds with about 97% of the population. It greatly increases personal and public health risks, e.g. the generation of highly drug resistant STDs within the homosexual community and extraordinarily high prevalence of these diseases in that same community. And it significantly shortens life expectancy. None of these is a good child-rearing outcome.

People are ignoring the real damage and pain that same-sex marriage inflicts on the children of opposite-sex married couples. They're also ignoring how allowing same-sex partners to legally marry causes severe psychological harm to the children of same-sex partners. It's much better to ensure that children of same-sex couples live in a household where their same-sex parents are unmarried. After all, marriage is a major cause of divorce. I know that my wife and I, and our children, have been reeling in agony since learning that same-sex couples marry. Prohibiting same-sex marriage ensures the health of the children. ;P

According to the note the married gay and lesbian couples don't include just those who actually got married in states were SSM is legal, but also those couples who self-identified as married. It seems to me that likely introduces a self-selection bias to the results.

It greatly increases personal and public health risks, e.g. the generation of highly drug resistant STDs within the homosexual community and extraordinarily high prevalence of these diseases in that same community.

The fact that the homosexual community currently suffers from risk factors associated with unstable relationships is an argument FOR same-sex marriage, not against it.

I don't think that the data show anything about the propensity to have children in gay marriages compared to marriages, since a substantial number of gay couples one of whom has a child marry in order to give the other member of the couple parental rights - whereas the vast majority of heterosexual couples must marry children or not simply to be respectable. While the average age of the gay vs straight couples is the same, 50ish is slightly on the elderly side for biological couples to have children at home, while it is not for adoptive couples. Nor is there any indication of age bands. How many couples 65+ are in each sample? How many couples 18-24 in each? I daresay the elderly and very young are far more numerous in the population of married couples.
To argue against gay marriage in the name of the "best interests of the child" is trivial, as "P's" satire indicates. Any prosperous, secure and humane gay couple can out-parent a deservedly poor and unloving couple which happens to include a male and a female.
SSM marriage opponents can't hang their hat on the notion that marriage provides the best environment for children for a number of reasons (it suggests that divorce and adoption should be banned; it is measurably better only on average by a few degrees; it invites the state to assess and judge parental competence and remove children from families, as happens now in the UK, it may not even be true, etc. etc.)
The only argument against SSM (except for religious arguments) is feminist.

The empirical data I'd like to see, is how children of same-sex couples do later in life compared to similar childern raised by a father and mother.

Catch-22.

You oppose SSM until there is data showing how children raised in SSM households fare later in life. How will you get such data without SSM? And suppose that the data show that for some categories of heterosexual couples the children fare worse than average. Would you prohibit such marriages?

The whole children business is suspect. The children of happily married heterosexual couples aren't being whisked away to be raised in SSM households. These are the biological or adoptive children of the same-sex couple.

Besides where, other than in the writings of SSM opponents, is it written that the primary purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for raising children? What about two people providing each other with love, support, care, "in sickness and in health," etc.?

For those of us who oppose gay marriage, the debate is actually about providing children with a mother and a father to raise them, which gay marriage cannot do. The empirical data I'd like to see, is how children of same-sex couples do later in life compared to similar childern raised by a father and mother.

The data I'd like to see if how well religious conservatives do in raising children, compared to secular liberals ... who's better adjusted, who's more tolerant, who's happier, who has less mental health issues and problems with the law, who does better in school, what their science SATs are like, who ends up with the better jobs and the bigger salaries ... and then we can forcibly sterilise those people whose outcomes really don't bode well. Just keepin' 'em unmarried doesn't stop their breeding, yaknow....

Stomp your feet and throw a tantrum if you like... I can guarantee that there will be posters in this thread who do just that in response to my comment, but nothing can change the fact that men and women are different.

For those of us who oppose gay marriage, the debate is actually about providing children with a mother and a father to raise them, which gay marriage cannot do.

Agree with Cornellian above. Banning gay marriage doesn't provide any existing children with a mother and father to raise them. The subtext here seems to be, "if a child will not have a mother and father to raise him/her, that child should not exist."

I was recently surprised to discover that research done by those supporting homosexual marriage provides overwhelming evidence that children raised by homosexual partners are much more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by heterosexual partners (see here).

It seems to me extremely bad policy to encourage something which greatly increases the likelihood of a child engaging in homosexual behavior.

The data I'd like to see if how well religious conservatives do in raising children, compared to secular liberals ... who's better adjusted, who's more tolerant, who's happier, who has less mental health issues and problems with the law, who does better in school, what their science SATs are like, who ends up with the better jobs and the bigger salaries ... and then we can forcibly sterilise those people whose outcomes really don't bode well. Just keepin' 'em unmarried doesn't stop their breeding, yaknow....

Well we already know conservatives are happier than liberals:

They also give more to charity:

But what the hell is a science SAT? Back when I took it there were two sections: Math and Verbal. Now it has three: critical reading, mathematics, and writing.

The fact that the homosexual community currently suffers from risk factors associated with unstable relationships is an argument FOR same-sex marriage, not against it.

It would be noteworthy and heartening if homosexuals in homosexual "marriages"* reduced those promiscuous and polymorphous sexual behaviors that create unique public and private health problems. However, research suggests that homosexual "marriage"* does little, if anything, to reduce these behaviors. For example, only about 4% of "married"* homosexuals are faithful to their spouses as compared to 76% of married heterosexual males and 85% of married heterosexual females. Homosexual "marriages"* also have a much shorter average duration than heterosexual marriages. [see here for citations]

* I put homosexual "marriage" in quotes because, contrary to the Census report cited by Professor Carpenter, sufficient data now exists to demonstrate that homosexual "marriages" differ sufficiently from heterosexual marriages, e.g., in regard to extramarital sexual behavior, longevity, and child-rearing outcomes, as to constitute a qualitatively different social phenomenon.

Unless I remember incorrectly, Brooks' work (which landed him a great gig at a conservative think-tank, proving anew that there's no better meal ticket in academia than tailoring your work to flatter rich people) was discredited when it turned out he was counting payments to churches as charitable contributions.

Those don't count (at least not in the real world), unless buying movie and concert tickets, paying a daycare bill, renting a hall for a reception, getting season tickets for a baseball team, hiring a marriage counselor, joining a country club and the like also count as "charitable contributions."

And I will shortly provide overwhelming evidence that the children of blond parents are much more likely to engage in blond-hair-having behavior than children raised by parents with darker hair.

The interesting thing about the research I linked to is that the rates of homosexual behavior in children raised by homosexual partners are so much greater than those found in the general population, e.g., a minimum of 15% versus 2% - 3%, as to compel the conclusion that something other than a purely genetic mechanism is at work. This mechanism might be learning or some other form of aculturation, it might be contagion, or it might be some other mechanism. It cannot be purely genetic unless you have some new theory of genetics to replace that which is commonly accepted in scientific circles. On the other hand blondness -- except that from a bottle -- is a purely genetic phenomenon.

Also blondness does not have negative consequences for children unless that old canard about blondness and stupidity is true. As I pointed out in my post there are profoundly negative health consequences associated with common homosexual behaviors.

Rates of homosexuality in the general population are 2% - 3%; among children raised by homosexual partners in the studies examined in the meta-analysis I cited they are a minimum of 15%. This cannot be explained by genetics. It cannot be explained by homosexual parents opting to raise children with a pre-disposition towards homosexuality. The studies are many. All were of sufficient quality to appear in peer-reviewed journals. Put up or shut up, which means provide alternative data or explanations or go away.

But what the hell is a science SAT? Back when I took it there were two sections: Math and Verbal. Now it has three: critical reading, mathematics, and writing.

The "Achievement" tests, IIRC. While SAT was purportedly an "aptitude" test, there was a bank of subject-matter tests that you could also take to measure competence in various areas. But this was long ago (for me); dunno what they do now. But you get the idea, in any case.

Are you volunteering for sterilization?

Who said anything about "volunteering"? As one august judge put it, "[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough." Time to take care of the problem of dysfunctional families once and for all; it's the least a functional and pragmatic gummint can do....

For example, only about 4% of "married"* homosexuals are faithful to their spouses as compared to 76% of married heterosexual males and 85% of married heterosexual females. Homosexual "marriages"* also have a much shorter average duration than heterosexual marriages....

The FRC? Why not just get on with it and cite people like Paul Cameron?

Say, have you showered with your son lately? You should, you know. Just to let him know who's boss.

[Oren]: And I will shortly provide overwhelming evidence that the children of blond parents are much more likely to engage in blond-hair-having behavior than children raised by parents with darker hair.

[Pro Natura]: The interesting thing about the research I linked to is that the rates of homosexual behavior in children raised by homosexual partners are so much greater than those found in the general population, e.g., a minimum of 15% versus 2% - 3%, as to compel the conclusion that something other than a purely genetic mechanism is at work.

Sad what passes for scientific edumakashun these days. If (assuming arguendo) the heritability of homosexuality was high, you'd expect an ever greater percentage of the children of homosexuals to be homosexual as well. Why you seem to think that such a disparity (assuming arguendo that such does in fact exist) argues for non-genetic factors is beyond me.

3) They have kids with a spouse of the opposite sex and then, after death or divorce, enter into a same-sex relationship.

This is more common with lesbians than with gay men; but possible with either. In these families, the children are biologically related to one parent and that parent may desperately seek marriage to ensure that their partner will have custody of her [or his] children should anything happen to her [of him].

A subsequent marriage does not confer custodial parental rights over a child that is not a product of that marriage. You have to go through a formal process of terminating the other biological parent's rights and adoption (which I believe can be done with or without marriage).

If I go out and marry the newly single Kate (from John and Kate Plus 8) and two weeks later she subsequently dies from cardiac arrest during one of her temper tantrums, do you think I am suddenly deemed the father of those six kids? I'm guessing John and his attorney may have something to say about that.

In the event that something happens to both biological parents, the standard would be "what is in the best interests of the child" and a homosexual partner to one of the deceased can apply for the job along with any other relatives or the long list of couples waiting in the adoption line. I don't think a marriage certificate would count for much in that analysis - it certainly wouldn't be any sort of trump card.

As long as we're being all statistical, someone should note that it's pretty silly to compare the 2-3% of excusively homosexual outcome in the general population with the 15-17% of homosexual experimentation cited above. I realize comparing apples and oranges can be useful, of course, if one is tring to mislead.

First of all, homosexual experimentation is much higher than 2-3% in the general population. Even 15-17% sounds low to me.

Secondly, how about comparing the percentages of outcomes involving suicide? What percentage of children of gay parents kill themselves because of their sexuality? I would venture zero.

You know, I always wonder whether anyone who opposes same-sex marriage with these kinds of arguments is ever going to address the logical conclusion.

Same-sex couples are always compare to some illusory idea opposite-sex couples in an effort to prove that some aspect of same-sex parenting is less than the ideal. Their conclusion, of course, is that therefore no same-sex couple anywhere should be allowed to marry.

But, oddly enough, wherever you set the bar, there are always far, far more straight couples who are already married, and get to stay married, who come in far below whatever standard same-sex couples supposedly don't meet.

Nobody is arguing for forcibly divorcing or annulling the marriages of such opposite sex couples.

If you are going to deny same-sex couples marriage based on a comparison to opposite sex couples, then you have to compare them to the WORST of the opposite sex couples who are allowed to be married and raise kids, or else deny marriage to the opposite sex couples who are worse than the BEST of the same sex couples.

Anything else is evidence of some sort of prejudice against gay people as such. But we all know that can't be it, don't we?

Missed the point of the data you are quoting. The statement was that children of same-sex couples are more likely to self-identify as having engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, not that they are more likely to self-identify as having a gay sexual orientation.

Unless more detail is included, your conclusion doesn't follow, for a variety or reasons:

Even if the incidence of "fooling around" with a same-sex partner is identical between the groups, people raised with a positive view of homosexuality will be far more willing to admit it.

There are plenty of studies, not to mention the life experience of the vast majority of gay people, that people raised among those with a hostile view of homosexuality are far more likely to be closeted, even if they are exclusively homosexual. So there will be an underreporting of actual gay people among those raised by straight couples. The willingness of people with a heterosexual orientation who have some same-sex experimentation in their past will also be reduced, leading to underreporting.

But even if the reporting is accurate, so what? The only operative statistic is eventual orientation. Not "willingness to consider a same-sex partner." Not "some experimentation to see what all the fuss is about." Even if universal heterosexuality is a goal, what matters is who people settle down with, not who they casually date along the way.

And of course, there is something wrong with the logic of "The point of marriage is raising healthy kids who will produce the next generation, and same sex marriage is bad because it produces a higher percentage of people who want to have and raise healthy kids with a member of their own sex."

Or to shorten it: "We can't let gay people raise kids, because then more of their kids will want to be gay people raising kids, and the goal of marriage is to raise kids."

Trust me, gay people and our supporters are well aware that men and women are different from each other.

However, some people seem to overlook the fact that men are not interchangeable and women are not interchangeable. In the rush to "prove" that gay people can't possibly create healthy relationships, what we're often left with is the idea that all you have to do is put any man together with any woman and marital bliss follows automatically.

No amount of stamping YOUR feet will change the fact that even among heterosexual relationships, success is far, far more based on personality than plumbing.

It's also worth noting that often the same people who most strongly complain that men and women are different and bring different things to straight relationships are the first to put gay men down for having too many feminine attributes and lesbian women down for having too many masculine ones.

In other words, even in the most offensively stereotypical views, straight men and straight women need each other to create a relationship that balances masculine and feminine qualities - the same thing that their stereotypical gay people bring to the relationship.

Of course, the rest of us are just a bit more aware that people can be complex, and that you can't tell everything about someone from their genitals.

Trust me, gay people and our supporters are well aware that men and women are different from each other.

However, some people seem to overlook the fact that men are not interchangeable and women are not interchangeable. In the rush to "prove" that gay people can't possibly create healthy relationships, what we're often left with is the idea that all you have to do is put any man together with any woman and marital bliss follows automatically.

No amount of stamping YOUR feet will change the fact that even among heterosexual relationships, success is far, far more based on personality than plumbing.

It's also worth noting that often the same people who most strongly complain that men and women are different and bring different things to straight relationships are the first to put gay men down for having too many feminine attributes and lesbian women down for having too many masculine ones.

In other words, even in the most offensively stereotypical views, straight men and straight women need each other to create a relationship that balances masculine and feminine qualities - the same thing that their stereotypical gay people bring to the relationship.

Of course, the rest of us are just a bit more aware that people can be complex, and that you can't tell everything about someone from their genitals.

Pro natura:" I was recently surprised to discover that research done by those supporting homosexual marriage provides overwhelming evidence that children raised by homosexual partners are much more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by heterosexual partners (see here)."

And "Dr." Hansen's reports have been thoroughly discredited. See here.

Pro "All were of sufficient quality to appear in peer-reviewed journals. Put up or shut up, which means provide alternative data or explanations or go away. "

No, there were NOT published in peer reviewed journals, at least not your conclusions. The studies that were in fact peer reviewed only said that that children of gay parents were more likely to consider same sex relationships. In other words, they were willing to state that if they were attracted to people of the same sex, they would have no problem having a relationship with them.

This is far different from saying that they actually ARE homosexuals, which is a sexual orientation. When you look at the data, the actual numbers of children of gay parents who are sexually oriented towards homosexuality is no greater than that of heterosexual parents.

Which of course, makes perfect sense. If sexual orientation were so easily influenced by parents, then there would be no gay people, because almost all gay people came from heterosexual households.

It's not a difficult concept, and it's well supported by peer reviewed studies. The problem is that the anti-gay people, like Dr. Hansen, will twist any data to support their notion that gay people are just bad, bad, bad.

Pro: "I put homosexual "marriage" in quotes because, contrary to the Census report cited by Professor Carpenter, sufficient data now exists to demonstrate that homosexual "marriages" differ sufficiently from heterosexual marriages, e.g., in regard to extramarital sexual behavior, longevity, and child-rearing outcomes, as to constitute a qualitatively different social phenomenon."

Anyone who quotes the Family Research Council on anything regarding gays is someone who isn't taken seriously. A more anti-gay group you cannot find, and they will be the first to tell you that. With them, and anyone who quotes their 'studies', it is conclusion first, make up evidence and arguements later.

The FRC? Why not just get on with it and cite people like Paul Cameron?

Anyone who quotes the Family Research Council on anything regarding gays is someone who isn't taken seriously. A more anti-gay group you cannot find

These are what are called ad hominem arguments. I provided the site as a convenient source of data and citations to research. If you can prove the data on the site or the cited research are wrong, please do so. I don't want to be misled by false data.

I did oversimplify the results I cited by using homosexual to as a shorthand for describing those in the meta-analysis's studies who self-reported homosexual behavior. You have every right to be annoyed with me for this and it was misleading. I thank you for calling me on this.

However, I still think an overview of the studies cited in the meta-analysis supports the conclusions of my first post. I suspect know that we disagree on this point. I invite interested readers of this post to examine the meta analysis for themselves here.

Truth:
The actual article you are quoting from is here. The lines right after what you quoted are:

"If these young adults raised by lesbian mothers were more open to a broad range of sexual possibilities, they were not statistically more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay."

Or as Golombok and Tasker (1996) put it themselves:

"The commonly held assumption that children brought up by lesbian mothers will themselves grow up to be lesbian or gay is not supported by the findings of the study: the majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual in adulthood, and there was no statistically significant difference between young adults from lesbian and heterosexual family backgrounds with respect to sexual orientation."

Your leaving out the part that doesn't support your agenda makes me wonder...

But it doens't take much to discredit Dr. Hansen. She claims that children are three times more likely to be gay with gay parents than with straight parents.

Well, think about that for a minute. If parents influence the sexuality of their children, then there would be almost not gay children. Yet, in every culture and every society, there is a constant percentage of gays. Gays pop up in even the straightest and strictest of households. Furthermore, if parents DO influence that much, then why only 15% of gay parents are gay? Shouldn't it be closer to, like, 80 or 90%?

IN addition, virtually all gay people say that they were born gay. Yet, for some reason, people like Dr. Hansen and the people at the FRC insist that no one is born gay, and that they choose to be gay. In other words, we could all easily be straight if we just choose to be straight. Why don't we be straight then? Because we somehow need to 'rebell' against God or some other such nonsense.

Putting aside the obvious absurdity of claiming that gays don't know themselves, only anti-gay people do (with regards to being born gay), if gays choose to be gay, then again, why only 15% of children claim to be gay? Why not 90%, if they are convinced gay is so easy and terrific? I guess we aren't doing a good job of recruiting new gays if we have such a failure rate!

Every single adoption agency in American and Britain says that gays make as good parents as straight parents. They consistently oppose any laws that would restrict gay's ability to adopt. Now, adoption agencies, if you have any experience with them, are fierce advocates for the children. They go to great lengths to place children in appropriate homes. If there was any evidence whatsoever that placing childnren with gay parents was in any way harmful, they would surely be the first ones to object. But not only do they NOT object, they fully support it. (Catholic adoptions excepted, although they only changed their policy once gays got the right to marry).

So these studies that show that gays make bad parents, or make children gay, don't even pass the laugh test. You will find that the ONLY people who make this argument are the ones who have consistently demonized gays for that past 30 years, and that includes the FRC. That may seem like an ad hominem attack, but even they agree that they have never had a good thing to say about any gay person ever.

Pro: "I invite interested readers of this post to examine the meta analysis for themselves here."

Hansen conducted no study on her own. Rather, she merely *reviewed* the studies of other researchers. This is why she hasn't been published a peer reviewed study. And, as the above link shows, she cherry picked and took things out of context to support her own forgone conclusion.

I certainly don't need a Hansen to tell me what the studies say -- I can read them myself. And they certainly don't say what she wants them to say.

If you can prove the data on the site or the cited research are wrong, please do so. I don't want to be misled by false dataThe Family Research Council is known for distorting and misusing data, they are a poison well as far as references.

Example? the page you cited.

First note their references, may are not talking about the actual works they are citing themselves but rather popular media articles that refer to the works they are pretending to cite. This is a hallmark of agenda driven propaganda.

But lets go down to specifics, their cites of commitments:

Compares census data to a self selected survey (complete with graphs!) done by a marketing firm that recruits participation though popular media geared to the young and 'trendy'. What honest person compares a population study with a self-selected study?

References Maria Xiridou study about relationships in men from the Amsterdam AIDS Cohort, men who were allowed into the study because they were both young and promiscuous.

A cite for a source no more credible than the FRC of another study "Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times", with again no direct referral to the study itself. (Are you seeing the pattern here?)

A study from 1973! (do I need to say more?)

Do I need to go on to the 'monogamy vs promiscuity' section that starts off referring to Dr. Xiridou's study with the purposely selected promiscuous gay population as "The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals,". Again, how many times do you have to catch someone being dishonest before you realize that everything they say is tainted?

Then on to "Bell and Weinberg" who's study was recruited in part by ads placed in gay bathhouses and they specifically stated that their results could NOT be used to show typical behavior.

I could go on but really, which of these bits of information isn't:

deliberately distorted
deliberately trying to show a worst case scenario
deliberately trying to obfuscate the information by citing secondary and even tertiary sources?

I mean just look how many times they went to the well on that misused Dutch study by Dr. Xiridou. She wasn't trying to find typical gay behavior, she was trying to identify potential vectoring and risk problems in a population selected for their youth and their promiscuity! The people that wrote that article know that but they lied to the reader over and over and over again. Deliberately.

And this is just one article from the FRC - I always have to laugh when I get my emails from Tony Perkins because if his God really does have a Hell and lying will get you there, he's get a nice roasty spot already reserved.

Maybe it would be easier for you to ask about a particular bit of data that you think hasn't been misused on that pile of statistical offal?

No, there were NOT published in peer reviewed journals, at least not your conclusions. The studies that were in fact peer reviewed only said that that children of gay parents were more likely to consider same sex relationships. In other words, they were willing to state that if they were attracted to people of the same sex, they would have no problem having a relationship with them. This is far different from saying that they actually ARE homosexuals, which is a sexual orientation. When you look at the data, the actual numbers of children of gay parents who are sexually oriented towards homosexuality is no greater than that of heterosexual parents.

"A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers in the sample reported having had a homoerotic relationship (6 of the 25 young adults raised by lesbian mothers 24% compared with 0 of the 20 raised by heterosexual mothers.)"

Which of course, makes perfect sense. If sexual orientation were so easily influenced by parents, then there would be no gay people, because almost all gay people came from heterosexual households. It's not a difficult concept, and it's well supported by peer reviewed studies. The problem is that the anti-gay people, like Dr. Hansen, will twist any data to support their notion that gay people are just bad, bad, bad.

Truth:The actual article you are quoting from is here. The lines right after what you quoted are:

"If these young adults raised by lesbian mothers were more open to a broad range of sexual possibilities, they were not statistically more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay."

Or as Golombok and Tasker (1996) put it themselves:

"The commonly held assumption that children brought up by lesbian mothers will themselves grow up to be lesbian or gay is not supported by the findings of the study: the majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual in adulthood, and there was no statistically significant difference between young adults from lesbian and heterosexual family backgrounds with respect to sexual orientation."

Your leaving out the part that doesn't support your agenda makes me wonder...

Hey genius, did you ever stop to think that "self-identification" is irrelevant when compared to actions?

No matter how much you want to cover it up, a statistically significant portion of children raised in a same-sex "family" have experienced or considered a homo-erotic relationship.

The fact that "social scientists" do their best to prop up the homosexual agenda by sugar coating the facts doesn't change what the data shows.

Again, More children raised in same-sex "families" have experienced a homoerotic relationship. Like it or not, actions trump self-identification.

No matter how much you want to cover it up, a statistically significant portion of children raised in a same-sex "family" have experienced or considered a homo-erotic relationship.

Of course they have - I hope all kids 'consider' all aspects of their possible sexual orientation so that they make the right decision and don't wake up to it after an unfortunate marriage with 2.5 kids, don't you?

Which of course, makes perfect sense. If sexual orientation were so easily influenced by parents, then there would be no gay people, because almost all gay people came from heterosexual households.

One would also expect large variations in the proportion of gay people from one culture to the next and from one era to the next but that is not the case. Does anyone really think there are vastly more gay people around today than there were 100 years ago?

Harold: "Randy and Bob is doing their absolute best to try to shout down and scream about Dr. Hansen. ANY study or data that conflicts with their agenda must be destroyed."

No, any study that is so biased as to be worthless should be ignored and/or shouted down. If you have any evidence to back up Hansen, let's hear it, but of course, instead of argument, you just have insults.

"t's textbook Kirk &Madsen. I've never seen a group of people stick to a game-plan better than homosexualists."

Well, then, either we are very good at taking our marching order from Homo Central, or we gays merely tell the truth, which just happens to be consistent. Strange how we can get teenagers so in lock step, when ordinary heteros can't get their kids to even take out the garbage!

So basically you are accusing all gays of being liars because we stick to a game plan we must know is not true.

Question, Harold: Why is it is so important to prove how horrible gay people are? No matter how hard you try, you are of course losing the battle -- every study shows that gays are more accepted than ever before. Why? Because once people get to actually know a few gay people, they realize all the 'studies' of the FRC is a fiction.

These are what are called ad hominem arguments. I provided the site as a convenient source of data and citations to research.

The FRC is widely known as a "fact-free" or "fact-unconstrained" organisation, repeatedly citing debunked 'scholarship' by disgraced partisans posing as 'researchers' (including Paul Cameron). They have an axe to grind. What they cite as research needs to be looked at with a very jaundiced eye (and has to be examined to see if it says what they say it says; see, e.g., your very own ignorance concerning heritability above).

This is what's called "impeaching the witness" ... a perfectly legal (and valid) form of persuasive argument.

Have you been showering with your son? I'll ask again. Because that's what "Dr." Dobson says you should do....

I did oversimplify the results I cited by using homosexual to as a shorthand for describing those in the meta-analysis's studies who self-reported homosexual behavior. You have every right to be annoyed with me for this and it was misleading. I thank you for calling me on this.

However, I still think an overview of the studies cited in the meta-analysis supports the conclusions of my first post.

"My facts and my assumptions were not correct, but I still believe my conclusions." That's the FRC for you. And the Earth is 6000 years old, too.

I invite interested readers of this post to examine the meta analysis for themselves here.

You (and "Dr." Hansen) have no idea what "meta-analysis" is. As some commentators elsewhere have noted, "Dr." Hansen has not published any peer-reviewed articles (for reasons that might be obvious from my prior comment). Sad to say, because my old roommate graduated from CSPP, and it is one of the more rigourous programs around for practising clinical psychology (but not necessarily for research). What this shows is that if you insist on denying reality and only believe the facts that comport with your predetermined conclusions, a good education will be of no avail.

Again, More children raised in same-sex "families" have experienced a homoerotic relationship. Like it or not, actions trump self-identification.

Typo there: Should be: "Again, More children raised in same-sex "families" have experienced a homoerotic relationship. Like it or not, self-reported actions trump self-identification." At a minimum, there is this problem with your argument. Unless, of course, you were at the keyhole keeping track. You pervert, you!!!

I'm not going to sift links to something that has been widely recognized by every responsible person in the field and people following it.

A google search of "Paul Cameron discredited" comes up with over 24,000 links. Certainly most of them are referencing each other, but anyone actually interested in the matter should find solid evidence within a few minutes.

I don't routinely feel the need to link to studies showing the earth isn't flat or that diseases are caused by demons, either.

Typo there: Should be: "Again, More children raised in same-sex "families" have experienced a homoerotic relationship. Like it or not, self-reported actions trump self-identification." At a minimum, there is this problem with your argument. Unless, of course, you were at the keyhole keeping track. You pervert, you!!!

What a lunatic! Do you realize that you just shot down EVERY single social science study in this area, as they ALL rely on self-reported data?

Why on earth would we believe self-reported data in regards to "sexual orientation but not believe such self-reported data when it comes to acts?

One would also expect large variations in the proportion of gay people from one culture to the next and from one era to the next but that is not the case. Does anyone really think there are vastly more gay people around today than there were 100 years ago?

Truth:<blockquote><i>What a lunatic! Do you realize that you just shot down EVERY single social science study in this area, as they ALL rely on self-reported data?</i></blockquote>It is a problem in social science research, particularly when the questions concern potentially embarrassing or potentially even criminal behaviour.

One interesting approach to this problem is to ask the respondents to flip a coin, and then to answer truthfully if it comes up heads, and in the embarrassing way if it comes up tails (if it's not obvious which way would be likely to self-report falsely, you can do 2 coin flips, with both heads being "yes", both tails being "no", and one each being answer truthfully). That way the survey taker doesn't know whether the answer is due to the coin flip or the actual status of any individual. The statistics are easy to do to correct for the coin-flip-forced answers.

But failure to recognise problems in self-reporting is just willful obtuseness.<blockquote><i>Why on earth would we believe self-reported data in regards to "sexual orientation but not believe such self-reported data when it comes to acts?</i></blockquote>Where did I say that?<blockquote><i>You are a deranged fool.</i></blockquote>I'm not the one with reading problems.

What a lunatic! Do you realize that you just shot down EVERY single social science study in this area, as they ALL rely on self-reported data?

It is a problem in social science research, particularly when the questions concern potentially embarrassing or potentially even criminal behaviour.

One interesting approach to this problem is to ask the respondents to flip a coin, and then to answer truthfully if it comes up heads, and in the embarrassing way if it comes up tails (if it's not obvious which way would be likely to self-report falsely, you can do 2 coin flips, with both heads being "yes", both tails being "no", and one each being answer truthfully). That way the survey taker doesn't know whether the answer is due to the coin flip or the actual status of any individual. The statistics are easy to do to correct for the coin-flip-forced answers.

But failure to recognise problems in self-reporting is just willful obtuseness.

Why on earth would we believe self-reported data in regards to "sexual orientation but not believe such self-reported data when it comes to acts?

Yet you people always scream that we have to follow the debunked studies of people like Charlotte Patterson. Ah sterotyping, another tactic with a 'smell'. When I have I even mentioned Charlotte Patteson - I didn't even know who she was until I goggled.

I guess you might have a point if her observations haven't been reproduced by other parties even has the studies of your Hansen confirms.

I say we should follow the truth, not studies. Do many many more of them with larger populations and over longer times with large staffs and researchers so personal bias will be ameliorated and minimized. Agreed?

I smell an agenda.Yes but since it was from a strawman stereotype I think you are really just smelling smoke coming out of... well...

Truth: "Yet you people always scream that we have to follow the debunked studies of people like Charlotte Patterson.

I smell an agenda."

Perhaps I should tell you something about "my people." Gays are just like everyone else -- some are great, some are jerks. Some are celebate, some are promiscuous. Some are activists, some are homebodies. Some have kids, some don't.

It is your side, those on the FRC, that never miss an opportunity to paint gays as evil liars hell bent on destroying marriage and all other social institutions. When we try to debunk these so-called studies, we are attacked, just like you did.

IF you want an agenda, look for it. The agenda for the FRC is consistent, one sided, inflammatory, and deriding towards gays. Always. And although people like Hansen are quick to point out how mentally ill and evil we all are, they never ever offer any analysis of what policies should be in place to help gays over come any of these 'issues.' Any clinical pscyhologist worth her salt would say that, for instance, drug abuse is common among black immigrants, and here is a how we should help them overcome the problem. Instead, people like Hansen have the view that gays are evil people and so they shouldn't have any rights whatsoever, and society should do nothing to help them, lest we breed more of them.

Look at our side -- we freely acknowledge there are problems in the gay community, and discuss ways to solve those problems. But we also celebrate the good things.

"One would also expect large variations in the proportion of gay people from one culture to the next and from one era to the next but that is not the case."

To the contrary, the acceptance of homosexual behavior in a society seems to have real influence on the prevalence of the behavior in that society. One can look to the ancient Greeks, for example. Or more recent data from the United States --

There are several problems with this kind of research. No study of 44 children is representative of the population at large. No matter how well the sampling is done, it can't be representative. According to the National Adoption Clearing House, there are about 6 to 14 million children living with a gay or lesbian parent. How can 44 children be representative of 6 to 14 million children?

They simply don't know what "representative" is. There may be issues with sample size and thus power (that is to say Type II errors) here, but that's always a problem with accepting the standard null hypothesis. If you want to prove the null hypothesis, no sample size less than the entire population is sufficient to do so.

The claim that the sample in not "representative" is an entirely different claim, and has nothing to do with sample size.

Perhaps I should tell you something about "my people." Gays are just like everyone else -- some are great, some are jerks. Some are celebate, some are promiscuous. Some are activists, some are homebodies. Some have kids, some don't.

It is your side, those on the FRC, that never miss an opportunity to paint gays as evil liars hell bent on destroying marriage and all other social institutions. When we try to debunk these so-called studies, we are attacked, just like you did.

IF you want an agenda, look for it. The agenda for the FRC is consistent, one sided, inflammatory, and deriding towards gays. Always. And although people like Hansen are quick to point out how mentally ill and evil we all are, they never ever offer any analysis of what policies should be in place to help gays over come any of these 'issues.' Any clinical pscyhologist worth her salt would say that, for instance, drug abuse is common among black immigrants, and here is a how we should help them overcome the problem. Instead, people like Hansen have the view that gays are evil people and so they shouldn't have any rights whatsoever, and society should do nothing to help them, lest we breed more of them.

Look at our side -- we freely acknowledge there are problems in the gay community, and discuss ways to solve those problems. But we also celebrate the good things.

So who is more balanced?

Absolute nonsense. Your people have an enormous amount of power, power that far exceeds your numbers and you willingly use that power to attack and destroy anyone who might have a different view.

You want to enlist the power of government to initiate force on your behalf, and you want to mercilessly crush anyone that stands in your way.

You go out of your way to smear people who dare publish anything that might harm your cause, but you expect us to accept the propaganda from people like Charlotte Patterson.

BTW: Randy, you are dead wrong about those eeeevvvvvillll Fundies (TM) you love to hate.

The prevailing Christian view fits into this category:

"The present debate about homosexual practice is not a debate about whether one should be pro- or anti-homosexual persons. All believers are called on to love persons with a homoerotic proclivity or, for that matter, any other sexual "orientations" that are at variance with Scripture. To oppose a person's self-destructive behavior is not the same thing as opposing the person. Indeed, to support a person's self-destructive and other-destructive behavior is, in effect, to oppose the person, albeit unwittingly. True love works in the best interests of those who experience homoerotic desires." Dr. Robert Gagnon.

They simply don't know what "representative" is. There may be issues with sample size and thus power (that is to say Type II errors) here, but that's always a problem with accepting the standard null hypothesis. If you want to prove the null hypothesis, no sample size less than the entire population is sufficient to do so.

The claim that the sample in not "representative" is an entirely different claim, and has nothing to do with sample size.

IOW, these people (NARTH) are clueless about statistics.

Hmmmm. You left out this little tidbit.

"Dr. Patterson's impartiality also came into question when prior to trial, she refused to turn over to her own attorneys copies of documentation utilized by her in studies. This court ordered her to do so (both sides having stipulated to the Order), yet she unilaterally refused despite the continued efforts on the part of her attorneys to have her do so. Both sides stipulated that Dr. Patterson's conduct was a clear violation of this Court's order. Her attorneys requested that sanctions be limited to the exclusion of her personal studies at trial and this Court agreed to do so.

"Dr. Patterson testified as to her own lesbian status and the Respondent maintained that her research was possibly tainted by her alleged use of friends as subjects for her research. This potential was given more credence than it should have been by virtue of her unwillingness to provide the Respondent as well as the Petitioner, with the documents ordered to be produced" (1997, JUNE AMER, Petitioner v Floyd P. Johnson, p. 11).

Sure, and this evidence of "love" entails opposing every form of gay rights initiaitves that ever come in the form of a ballot or a vote or a court case. The FRC consistently opposes all of these, along with the Catholic Church. On the other hand, they support all initiatives that would restrict any rights of gays, such as gay marriage, Colorado's Amend 2., restrictions on adoption, ability to fire gays as teachers or in other public institutions and so on.

But please, don't take my word for it. I would love you to show me one example were fundies, the FRC or the Catholic Church has ever supported just one gay rights law. Please, go ahead and prove me wrong.

"Your people have an enormous amount of power, power that far exceeds your numbers and you willingly use that power to attack and destroy anyone who might have a different view.

You want to enlist the power of government to initiate force on your behalf, and you want to mercilessly crush anyone that stands in your way.

You go out of your way to smear people who dare publish anything that might harm your cause, but you expect us to accept the propaganda from people like Charlotte Patterson."

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.